sample text:Creation of the EARTH

(Sample text from Chapter 6)
True Science and the Big Bang
   True science begins with an understanding of Creator God, His Word, and His Testaments, Old and New to us. Remember, with a false presupposition there are an infinite number of false conjectures that can explain the spaces in the datum, and these result primarily in our ignorance in describing reality.
The Great Nobel plasma scientist Hannes Alfven, in his Nobel lecture on December 11, 1970, entitled “Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system,” told us:
The first decade of space research mainly concentrated on the exploration of space near the Earth: the magnetosphere and interplanetary space. These regions earlier were supposed to be void and structure less but we know now that they are filled with plasmas, intersected by sheath-like discontinuities, and permeated by complicated patterns of electric currents and electric and magnetic fields. The knowledge gained in this way is fundamental to our general understanding of plasmas, especially cosmic plasmas. Our advancing knowledge in cosmical electrodynamics will make it possible to approach these fields in a less speculative way then hitherto…the knowledge of plasmas is also fundamental to our understanding of the origin and evolution of the Solar System because there are good reasons to believe that the matter which now forms the celestial bodies once was dispersed in a plasma state. […] the so-called thermonuclear crisis some ten years ago (1960) taught us that plasma physics is a very difficult field, which can only be developed by a close cooperation between theory and experiments. As H. S. W. Massey once said (in a somewhat different context): “The human brain alone is not able to work out the details and understanding of the inner workings of natural processes. Without laboratory experiment there would be no physical science today…cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics…many of them (physicists) still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong…in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasma has been a failure.”  It is possible that this new area also means a partial return to more understandable physics. For the non-specialists four-dimensional relativity theory, and the indeterminism of atom structure have always been mystic and difficult to understand. I believe that it is easier to explain the thirty-three instabilities in plasma physics or the resonance structure of the solar system… And if the night sky on which we observe them is at high latitude, outside the lecture hall—perhaps over a small island in the archipelago of Stockholm—we may also see in the sly an aurora, which is a cosmic plasma, reminding us of the time when our world was born out of plasma. Because in the beginning was plasma. 
(My comment: Alfven ended with some kind of semi-biblical parody that does make one wonder what his god is like.)
Theories describing the formation of the earth and moon are in big trouble. The findings of the Genesis probe of the sampling of the sun’s wind indicate the sun and the earth are not made from the same source due to the difference in isotopes of oxygen and other elements. Oxygen, the third most common element in the known universe, is quite diagnostic of elemental sources.  The lead scientist analyzing the Genesis satellite data reported breathtaking results as he tells us, 
Our results demonstrate that the Sun is highly enriched in (16)O relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. Because the solar photosphere preserves the average isotopic composition of the solar system for elements heavier than lithium, we conclude that essentially all rocky materials in the inner solar system were enriched in (17)O and (18)O, relative to (16)O, by ~7%, probably via non-mass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals. 
Later analysis of nitrogen showed the following. Genesis solar wind concentrator target material shows that implanted solar wind nitrogen has a (15)N/(14)N ratio of 2.18 ± 0.02 × 10(-3) (that is, ≈ 40% poorer in (15)N relative to terrestrial atmosphere). The (15)N/(14)N ratio of the protosolar nebula was 2.27 ± 0.03 × 10(-3), which is the lowest (15)N/(14)N ratio known for solar system objects. This result demonstrates the extreme nitrogen isotopic heterogeneity of the nascent solar system and accounts for the (15)N-depleted components observed in solar system reservoirs.
Once we reject the crude conjectures for the formation of the earth based on the fact that the moon and earth’s composition are mostly identical and both are not from the sun, we should importantly consider the words of our Creator in Genesis.
A reasonable theory that begins with the words of Genesis rather than following a crude conjecture of those who weren’t there follows: students, consider: Boudreaux-Baxter theory of aquo-nucleosynthesis of the chemical elements and accelerated beta decay rates.
   Present theories of creation of the earth and their failures are described by what I consider a reasonable scientist who begins with the Word of Creator God. Dr. Edward A. Bordeaux, specialist in quantum/computational chemistry, magneto chemistry, and chemical physics, with more than fifty-four papers in peer-reviewed journals, co-author/editor of four technical books with some ninety-seven presentations, forty invited lectures to local national and international conferences, has written what I consider a definitive book, God Created the Earth: Genesis of Creation Chemistry (2012, 2nd ed.). He presents the Boudreaux-Baxter theories of 1. aquo-nucleosynthesis of the chemical elements and 2. accelerated radioactive decay rates.
   I first heard Dr. Boudreaux ten years ago, and I was suspect because his whole idea depended on what was really written in the Bible, in fact, a word that needs clarification. My King James Bible translates the text of Genesis 1:2: “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
I was dumbfounded that this early translation of the ancient Hebrew of “moved” was not informative. Ten years later, I did what I was supposed to do and pursued the word (like a Berean) and found out that “moved” is not the word, but “rachaph” (Strong#7363) is a primitive root meaning to “brood.” My grandmother kept Road Island Red Hens and had a “brooding” house. I knew what she did with those eggs—she “incubated” them in the brooding house. Low and behold, the ancient Syriac cognate term translated means “to brood over; to incubate.” Realizing that the hen heated the egg with her body, I started to grasp Ed Boudreaux’s point.
   Read Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and note the “waters” are mentioned as the precursor to the elements. Where the simple meaning of the word is clear, any other meaning is without bounds…if you walk from literal, it could mean anything that, I would argue, is not what Creator God speaks to us.
Once the Holy Spirit heats the water to 1 x 10^10 + degrees Kelvin (a billion or more degrees),
the 6.02 x 10^23 (23rd power) kg of water was used to produce the elements and provide 2.013 x 10^50 oxygen atoms (O) and 4.02 x 10^50 hydrogen atoms (H), each H atom ionizes its electrons to produce 13.5eV, and each oxygen atom produces 871.4eV if all eight of the electrons are ionized. The atoms providing 1.754 x 10^53 eV plus 5.44 x 10^51 eV from the H atoms yield a total of 1.08 x 10^53 eV or 1.808 x 10^47 MeV. 
Boudreaux gives us the work done equation that includes the plasma decomposition energy parameters, recombination energy of solid earth, mass of water converted to non-aqueous earth, Boltzmann’s constant the temperature change in going from the plasma state to a solid earth yielding work = 2.0 MeV in which the temperature equivalent of the energy is 2.3 x 10^10 confirming the condition of the high-temperature plasma. “The pressure to drive nuclear collisions is a property of the plasma.” 
   So if the Boudreaux-Baxter theory of aquo-nucleosynthesis of chemicals is true, it appears that the “waters” of the bible were turned to water plasma at a temperature of 2.3 x 10^10-2.3 x 10^14 K0 or more than a billion degrees plasma where he next argues, the “collisions become non-elastic” and, because of the application of the standard collision theory of hard spheres and the collision rate between, unlike particles. He then calculates the nuclear collision energy for effective fusion as a function of the reaction utilizing the nuclear activation energy (critical energy) for the collision-fusion process modeled after the rate equation addressing chemical activation energy where the actual collision rate is clearly dependent on the total number of effective collisions. (Please read the equations directly in his book.)
   The presuppositions/assumptions of this data Boudreaux gives as follows:
1. Conventional nucleosynthesis theory, as applied in the production of chemical elements in the evolution of star formation, is not considered in this model.
2. All nucleosynthesis processes are treated in terms of the energy transferred according to inelastic classical collision theory of hard spheres. In this model, collision cross-sections are not a function of energy but are confined to particle dimensions.
3. The total energy provided for each fusion process is a function of the masses of pertinent nuclides and the Q (excess energy) of each reaction. [See the following section on rate production p. 27.]
4. For purposes of simplicity and time constraints, this study has completed, thus far, is limited to the production of only the most stable abundant isotopes of product elements. An extension to various other isotopes, particularly for heavier elements, is planned in a continued extension of this study.
5. Although more than one process may be applicable for the production of a specific element, for purposes of consistency, only the most energy-efficient options have been selected.
6. Because of the limitations of this present work, no comments can be made about relative elemental abundances in the earth, much less in the solar system or universe. 
Is the Nuclear Collision Reaction Model Scientifically Rational?
The question of whether or not collision processes provide an adequate mechanism for producing fusion products has been criticized in terms of the following: although at high-pressure temperatures, the thermal energy and collision frequency are greatly increased, it is natural to presume that the nuclide (hard-sphere) collisions will be increased. However, at close inter-nuclear collision distances and high charges, the repulsive energy will be substantially in excess of the collision energy required for fusion. Consequently, such collisions cannot allow for a fusion product to be realized. This premise can be tested using a selected example of one of the specific collisions listed in Table 3 (part 1). On the last page of Table 3, the two nuclides bearing the highest charges are Pd(+46)/Nd(+60). Application of equation (9) in part 2 at a collision distance of 1.75 x 10^-14m and an effective charge of Ze = +45.2 yields a repulsion energy of 3.46 MeV. This is slightly less than twice the 1.55 MeV required to produce the fusion product. If this were the only factor involved, then indeed, the repulsion energy would prohibit any fusion from taking place. But fortunately, this is not the case because, as shown in part 2, there is a plasma kinetic energy of 5.6 MeV imparted to each nuclide contained within the plasma. This is more than sufficient to overcome the repulsive energy and still provide the 1.55 MeV required for the Pd/Nd collision to be effective.
Hence, the objection to nuclear collisions being effective at high charges is nullified, and the collision process for nuclear fusion is vindicated for all nuclear reactions forming all elements. 
   Boudreaux’s work is remarkable, to say the least; while I’m not trained enough to do more than present their work, I encourage you to read their publication and communicate with them directly.
   Plasma physics apparently in its infancy, should be able to describe 90 to 98 percent of the universe since it is plasma. Our ignorance can be seen in the billions of dollars spent trying to imitate the environment of the “big bang” (which never happened) because the leaders of our scientific-university complex used what S. A. Adamenko called the so-called “force” method, which posits the problem of controlled nucleosynthesis can only be solved by…
Using more and more powerful technical means (accelerators with maximally high energy, neutron sources with maximally high energy, systems of controlled synthesis of the “tokamak” type, etc.), which requires high cash investments measured in billions of dollars (with subsequent high salaries). However, this way is erroneous in principle because the technical resources of our civilizations are bounded, and the force-based attempts to reproduce the process that occurs in abnormal astrophysical objects of the type of pulsars or neutron stars under laboratory conditions are unrealistic.  
Perhaps, taking a clue from Ed Boudreaux’s concern for high electric charge blocking the processes to be studied, the giant projects fail because of the simple reason they are working with too great a charge density or some such problem due to the enormous scale they are attempting.
   At the Proton-21 electrodynamics laboratory  (Kiev), where the method is basically explained in US Patent US20050200256A1 published September 15, 2005, Stanislav Adamenko basically has provided the data that totally supports the Boudreaux-Baxter theory, totally wiping out the “big bang” theory (which required 18 billion years followed by the accretion of stellar dust by gravity), which no mechanism of this type has ever been validated. Adamenko has produced all known chemical elements instantaneously in the Protein-21 electrodynamics lab in Ukraine using relatively low energy but in a microscale. Where a solid target substance (pure metal, alloy, plastic) is subjected to explosive-induced compression, transforming it into plasma, whereby all the elements are produced. 
   Boudreaux and Baxter describe with their equations how all the elements of the earth are shown to be produced in amounts currently accepted to be in the earth within the time period of two and a half days, and the plasma earth is rapidly cooled within a minimum of forty-seven hours (fifty-nine to sixty-three hours) via thermal conduction based on a maximum thermal diffusivity of the plasma particles. This totally supports Creator God’s Word as written down by Moses some 3,400 years ago! If you start your equations with truthful propositions, you will more likely be able to explain the gaps in the data truthfully.
   Does this make as much sense to you as it does to me?
The Death of Accretion : Elapsed “Time”
   The key mechanism for the big bang theory” to create the galaxies, the planets, and the earth is a random process requiring “billions and billions” of years and much magic called accretion. When the Holy Spirit heated the waters to superhot plasma, an event occurred during the cool-down phase that has support in the literature (as opposed to no data proving accretion, accretion  is only a “best” guess hypothesis).
   The first paper by Takahashi et al. suggested an atom with its electron shells stripped away would be able to emit a beta particle (beta decay) at a much faster rate allowing the beta particle to fill up the empty shells rather than the much higher threshold requiring much more kinetic energy to jump past filled shells into empty space.  (Shortly after the theory was presented, experimental data was forthcoming proving accelerated beta decay rates.) 
   The newer system of rock dating uses lutetium-hafnium (176)Lu-(176)Hf, in which a normal half-life of 40 billion years becomes 3.68 hours in one study and eight days in a second study.  Another system,(187)rhenium-(187)osmium Beta decay with traditional half-life of 43 billion years, dropped to thirty-three years when fully ionized in the lab. 
   So when these elements, to be detected later in rock, are heated to 15.4 billion degrees Kelvin, uranium 283 half-life becomes two minutes, thorium 232’s half-life of 14 billion years becomes 15.6 minutes, samarium 147’s half-life of 106 billion years becomes 2.46 minutes, rubidium 87 half-life of 47 billion years becomes 2.46 minutes, and potassium 40’s half-life of 102 billion years becomes 5.87 minutes, etc. The point is that when today’s evolutionist brags about “billions and billions” of years “proven” for his theory, he is looking at the “appearance” of enormous age generated by his  ignorance of hot plasma accelerated decay—a more reasonable scientific explanation disavowing any “accretion” theory or other “billions of billions”; fanciful thought so necessary to those claiming Creator God and His Word are not true.
   Notice the billions necessary for Darwinian evolution  falls apart; thus, the frequency of beneficial mutations necessary for dead “molecules-to-man” evolution, so controlling our biology texts and departments, melts away to silence. What happened is “knowledge increased,” and data of the physics that describes 98 percent of the universe, plasma, came to light.
   To further support Boudreaux and Baxter’s theories, Dr. Stanislav Adamenko  of the Proton-21 electrodynamics lab in Kiev wrote a letter that “water could indeed be used as a target substance if the equipment were provided with a means of keeping the water frozen when it is subjected to the explosion induced compression [used in his lab].” 
Now consider the possibilities that the moon is a plasma source (like a Z-plasma pinch from the water plasma structure of pre-earth of day three to day four when the moon was formed) from the common earth-moon water plasma.
1.    The earth and the moon are made of the same material.
2.    The thickness of the side of the moon facing us is much less than the farside crust thickness. In fact, the volcanic vents seem to be only on this side. I am not sure of the plasma physics or the Birkeland currents that would be involved where earth’s charge and polarity act on the moon’s plasma, but much must be worked out in the future.
Can a plasma pinch be made to be asymmetric if it is not rotating and  with one side of greater thickness exposed to greater gravity and magnetic/electric forces on that  side?
3.    Present conjectures don’t usually include recent data on “nonsolar source” and require millions and billions of years to support the anti-biblical thinking as well as accretion due to gravity. Most recognize the enormous power of electrical current forces compared to the 1 x 10^40 weak gravity as a generator of the heavenly bodies.
4.    See “The Moon: New Data and Hypothesis of Origin” by Oleg and Anna Aseeva regarding the isotope geochemistry of the lunar rocks. 
   It’s darkness when you or your teacher are not seeing the world from Creator God’s point of view. It has been a 400-year artificial separation of the supposedly morally “neutral” science claiming a neutral position on “good and bad.” What a cop-out as we see the potential evil use of science and pseudoscience to destroy and kill all humans (H-bomb) and murder human spirits and souls in our universities and schools (clearly evil-bad stuff). As noted in Matthew 6:22 (NLT): “But when your eye is bad, your whole body is filled with darkness, and if the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness is!” 
Students, Consider: Death of the Big Bang Theory
   The Inflation mechanism proposed to save the whole big bang model may have no supporting data. Paul J. Steinhardt in the Scientific American noted there are much simpler explanations for the cosmic microwave background.  The headline article in Sky & Telescope on June 2, 2014, “Big Bang Inflation Evidence Inconclusive,” written after the BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at the south pole. As scientists struggle to validate the Cobe 2 picture of the cosmic microwave background and its finding of a tiny microwave temperature differences from one area to the other of one part in 100,000, which, with false coloring, appears significant and which, big bangers claim, represents their miraculous/singularity.These scientists cannot yet separate the amount of polarized emissions coming from their glorious “signal that proves the big bang” and the signal “noise” coming from the plain anatomy of the galactic dust of our Milky Way, which is known to be polarized. They must correctly separate the E and B modes (electric and magnetic). It’s as if they assume the universe is a gigantic cavity resonator, and they can look at it or sample the signal from it and, with a long string of presuppositions, make sense of it. I assume some unique phase-shifting is being used, but the whole enterprise seems misdirected. There is a much simpler explanation for the CMB than the big bang model. Since we are looking at a 95 percent plasma universe that is quite heterogeneous (look up at the night sky) and since we know there is an electromagnetic wave-plasma interaction, and its oblique propagation cross-polarized field components are induced within the plasma medium when the plasma medium is moving (it is) with respect to the observer (expansion).  Or the very “bumps” they claim as signal could be due to the very presence of electric and B mode separating in the signal at extreme distances and includes microwaves projected from other galaxies leading to a “best guess” for creation rather than a word of a book that tells us 1,000-key events before they happen, the Bible.
   Also, key data was presented in The Astrophysical Journal in 1970 that all but killed the big bang’s idea of galaxy formation when Vera C. Rubin and the highly respected W. Kent Ford, Jr. published “Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emissions Regions.”  They studied sixty-seven bright stars in this beautiful galaxy (the only one moving toward us) with a DTM image tube spectrograph (now seen at The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum). As you moved from far into far-out regions of the galaxy, the velocity profile showed an effective “flat” velocity profile that doesn’t allow the accretion mechanism according to Laplace’s mechanism or other mechanisms (no agreement). Because of this failure to prove the Bible wrong, they had to invent out of whole cloth that more than 90 percent of the universe is missing and is strangely “dark” for the necessary gravity to hold it together; that is, “dark matter and “dark” energy. Just to hold their theory together…for they claim Creator God, the only observer of these events, must be wrong.
   Our major point about science and the study of science is that it is a “moving train,” always changing with new findings and not something to rest your theology and certainly not your kid’s morality  on. Not for a minute discouraging the study of science, for to search out a thing God has concealed is an honor of Kings (Proverbs 25:2). Indeed, a scientist that conducts a true search for knowledge and truth is an “honor of Kings” and is to be respected.
   In dismantling the big bang, Williams and Harnett gave us four reasons to reject the big bang theory:

1. “It doesn’t work…It only produces an expanding cloud of gas” (and gas clouds don’t make up what we see here today).
2. “The theory lacks a credible and consistent mechanism.” (Infinite density point containing all energy and matter we now see in the universe. What started the expansion? No equations exist for this.) It requires a hypothetical period of stupendous inflation to stop the universe from (early) re-collapsing. It further requires incredible fine-tuning to maintain stability. (Miraculous, its mechanism would produce equal amounts of matter-anti-matter, but we only see matter. It violates physical laws with appeal to “dark” matter and energy to explain what is observed.)
1.    “Chemical evolution (eventually leading to intelligent life, an essential ingredient in any evolutionary cosmology) is clearly excluded by the evidence.”
2.    “Science cannot produce any final answer on the subject of origins.” (Because science works in the present. If scientists claim they are looking back “billions of billions” of years of elapsed time, but they know a light year is a distance, not a time. We have no measures of how the clock “ticks” in deep space.)

William and Harnett point out correctly that “The honor and glory of God are revealed in His work of Creation.” 
   How can a product such as man who is so dimensionally below the Creator imagine an observer that has the correct information and the correct operator (i.e., Hamiltonian) to describe his Creator?
Because these parameters have infinite possibilities with 0 (zero) or 1/∞ chance of nailing down the truth, I choose to go with what the only Observer of these events, Creator God, who tells us simply how it was done, when it was done, and why it was done, thereby explaining to this poor man (me) who he is and what he is doing with respect to his Creator.
Just saying the beginning must have low, low entropy (order) and, to create humans, must have precise “initial conditions” is as bad a contradiction as “random equals information.” Poincare recurrences require waiting a “sufficiently” long time—presumes the invention of time. What observer can our “water brains” imagine in such impossible, unnatural conditions pushes the understanding of “naturalism” beyond credulity. Someone is pulling our leg to get grant money! Hermann Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game (Magister Ludi) is somewhere operating here. We see the breakdown of these thoughts is inevitable…they collapse with the weight of their own propositions! The irony is they build structure of their pretend universe on the power and precision of “unable to know” (ignorance) from the Heisenberg picture. 
   I repeat, picture man stumbling through the void; if he has no lantern to let him see what is there, he is lost. That lantern is the Word of Creator God. You must pick it up—grasp it in your hands, open it, and seek to understand the words (and ask your Creator to explain it to you) or you are sure to wonder from “nowhere to nowhere.” Otherwise, you are always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
Students, consider the newest pictures from the James Webb Space Telescope.
   Notice in the picture comparing a deep space picture from the Hubble Space Telescope to the newest deeper space pictures from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Notice in the picture below the following (See https://youtu.be/vAxgaTvYA7Y):
1.    Many galaxies are smooth, not with rough edges, and not torn from collisions with other galaxies.
2.    Some galaxies are surprisingly small and old. Not larger and larger as light left them when they were closer to us (long ago).
3.    Same galaxies as Hubble observed are smaller and with redshifts two to three times greater.
4.    Universe is not expanding because these faraway galaxies are the same size as those near to us today.
5.    Galaxy GHZ2 is much more luminous than our Milky Way, but its radius is only 300 light years or 150 times smaller than the radius of the Milky Way. Its brightness would be 600 times brighter than any galaxy in the local universe, with a density of 10,000 times the galaxies we see today.
6.    The smooth galaxies are not torn with many collisions with other galaxies, “no scares or rough edges,” ten times smoother than the big bang predicted.
7.    Galaxy mergers are few, meaning immense galaxies were always immense, never tiny, as predicted in the big bang theory.
8.    There are 100,000 times as many galaxies as theorists predicted, with redshifts of more than ten.
9.    Such distant galaxies could not be formed in so little time. Therefore no big bang occurred.